M.N. Dental Diagnostics, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 01525 (App. Div. 1st 2011)
It is well settled that "the No-Fault Law does not codify common-law principles; it creates new and independent statutory rights and obligations in order to provide a more efficient means for adjusting financial responsibilities arising out of automobile accidents" (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v Nelson, 67 NY2d 169, 175 ). Since it is undisputed that there existed no contract between plaintiff's assignor and the NYCTA, the common carrier's obligation to provide no-fault benefits arises out of the no-fault statute. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations as set forth in CPLR 214(2) is applicable here.
What does this mean for self-insureds?
Pomona Med. Diagnostics, P.C. v GEICO Ins. Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50276(U) (App. Term, 1st 2011)
In opposition to plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Countrywide Ins. Co. v 563 Grand Med., P.C., 50 AD3d 313, 314 ; Central Nassau Diagnostic Imaging, P.C. v GEICO, 28 Misc 3d 34, 36 ; Fair Price Med. Supply, Inc. v St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 16 Misc 3d 8, 9 ), the report of defendant's peer review doctor, which relied on the assignor's medical records (see Cross Cont. Med., P.C. v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 Misc 3d 10, 11 ; see also Urban Radiology, P.C. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., 27 Misc 3d 140[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50987[U] ), raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the services provided by plaintiff were medically necessary (see Krishna v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 24 Misc 3d 128[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51312[U] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, its "submissions did not conclusively establish as a matter of law its defense of lack of medical necessity," and its cross motion was properly denied (A Plus Med., P.C. v Mercury Cas. Co., 23 Misc 3d 136[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50824[U] ).